M.M. Kumar, J.@mdashThe dealer-petitioner has filed the instant petition u/s 22(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, ""the
PGST Act"") for issuance of direction to the Punjab VAT Tribunal, Chandigarh-respondent No. 3 (for brevity, ""the Tribunal"") to state the case and
refer the questions of law emerging from its order dated August 11, 2003 (P6) passed in Appeal No. 263 of 2000-01. Brief facts of the case are
that the dealer-petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 at
Panipat in the State of Haryana. It is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of jute/HDPE bardana, which is used in packing of rice. On
January 16, 1999, the dealer-petitioner made sale of bardana to a Calcutta firm, namely, V. K. Udyog Ltd., which was to be delivered at the
factory premises of M/s. Bhagwati Rice Mills, Ferozepur, in the State of Punjab. On January 16, 1999 itself, the dealer-petitioner made another
transaction in favour of S.N.T. Agro Industries Ltd., Delhi, and the goods were to be delivered at the premises of M/s. Shiva Rice Mills, Rampura
Phul in the State of Punjab.
2. On January 17, 1999, the vehicle and goods were detained by the Assistant Director (Enforcement) Punjab, u/s 14B(6) of the PGST Act on
the premise that the Goods Receipt (GR) was not accompanying the documents. On January 18, 1999, the Deputy Director (Enforcement)
imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000 u/s 14B of the PGST Act by arriving at a conclusion that the there was an attempt to evade tax (P3). The dealer-
petitioner filed an appeal u/s 20(1) of the PGST Act before the Joint Director (Enforcement), Patiala Division, Patiala. The Appellate Authority has
recorded a categoric finding that no bill book or any other cogent evidence was produced to prove that sale bill was issued out of regular bill
book. The dealer-petitioner also failed to produce original documents. At the time of checking the goods were not covered by trip sheet, log book
or goods receipt and documents in favour of the Punjab parties. The appellate authority, accordingly dismissed the appeal while reducing the
penalty to Rs. 55,000, vide order dated April 4, 1999 (P4). The dealer-petitioner thereafter filed further appeal before the Tribunal, which was
dismissed vide order dated August 11, 2003 (P6).
3. The dealer-petitioner then filed an application u/s 21A(2) of the PGST Act before the Tribunal for rectification of order dated August 11, 2003
(P7), which was dismissed on February 23, 2005 (P9). Feeling aggrieved with the orders passed by the Tribunal, the dealer-petitioner filed CWP
No. 17919 of 2005 in this court, which was disposed of on December 13, 2006 by relegating it to avail of alternative remedy of filing reference
application u/s 22(1) of the PGST Act before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the dealer-petitioner filed reference application on January 2, 2007 (P10)
for referring various questions of law for adjudication of this court. The Tribunal rejected the aforementioned application by observing that the
dealer-petitioner was found guilty of evasion of tax and the question of facts were involved, vide order dated July 20, 2007 (P11). Accordingly,
the dealer-petitioner has filed the instant petition for directing the Tribunal to refer various questions of law for determination of this court after
drawing statement of facts. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the dealer-petitioner has pressed only following two
question as mentioned in para 12 of the petition:
(1) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, there is any attempt to evade tax, which is mandatory requirement for imposition of penalty u/s 14B
of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948?
(2) Whether the dealer has committed any offence by sending the goods sold to Calcutta dealer, to a Punjab dealer on the instructions of the buyer
for job-work?
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the paper books with their able assistance, we are of the
considered view that the facts are absolutely clear and there is no finding recorded by any of the Revenue authorities that the dealer-petitioner was
under obligation to pay sales tax. Once, there is no determination of such nature then the question of evasion would also be a subject-matter of
dispute. Therefore, we are of the view that the aforesaid two questions of law would arise for determination of this court. Accordingly, the Tribunal
is directed to refer the aforesaid two questions of law for opinion of this court after drawing statement of facts, attaching copies of all the orders.
The paper book should be computer printed as per the provisions of law. The instant petition stands disposed of in the above terms.